If Microsoft is not threatening to sue over patents, why would they hand Novell a boatload of money to sign a patent deal with royalties going back to Microsoft for every Novell Linux sold? Microsoft paid Novell a bunch of money to do this deal, and all of this after remarks about patent violations in Linux.
It's quite obvious Microsoft wants people to pay for Linux with royalties going to Microsoft, under the threat of lawsuit. And in case you need the threat spelled out for you, Ballmer did so, multiple times:
What makes me laugh is that America still calls itself the "Land of the Free" *snicker* and the "Home of the Brave" *guffaw*.
Those are ideals that have never, in no time in America's history, have ever been fully lived up to. Still, it's nice to have ideals.
You appear to be neither from over here.
Where is "here"? Every country has it's problems.
I'll probably be modded as flamebait or a troll for this
No you won't, because you included this phrase, which often results in upmods, as I'm sure you're aware.
Maybe we should vote on it; you Americans are okay with voting, right? Even if it means you might lose?
Go ahead, why the fuck should Americans care? The world will continue on in pretty much the same way, since America has no official position as "leader of the free world". That point was made pretty clear when a lot of the "free world" countries were against the invasion of Iraq.
I can't remember too many actual real examples of microsoft trying to scare anyone with thier patents. What I do remember is every linuxite freaking out about the fact that Microsoft COULD try to scare people if they felt like it someday.
I was referring to the scientific method, not to reason in general.
A big part of the scientific method is reasoning. Of course there is no "God" experiment you can run in the lab, but you can gather evidence. When the evidence points to mythology, then I don't call it a "null pointer exception".
Some have actually come to the conclusion that God exists by using their reason.
I've never seen a strong case based on reasoning. The strongest I've seen is the watchmaker argument, but that one doesn't go very far.
Actually, I did mean appealing. Why go through the junk of life when there's no ultimate payoff?
Ok, I misinterpreted what you said. I see you mean suicide would be an appealing option if you didn't have belief. But while you might give it more consideration, it's a hell of a thing to commit yourself to.
The difference between religion and those things is that religion is not demonstrably false.
I'll grant that it's not as obvious, but there are a vast number of holes in religion.
So, not only do people have no business lashing out against religion because it's immature, they have no business doing so because it isn't demonstrably false.
Missing the biggest argument, that religion encourages dogma, which is the exact opposite of science.
And I don't think it's at all unrealistic to expect religion to get treated with a modicum of respect.
No more respect than the RIAA, Microsoft, or Bush/Republicans get. This is Slashdot.
But it's useless for studying something that cannot be empirically demonstrated.
I think all religious teachings can be reasoned about. In fact, you did so yourself in your post, numerous times.
And, as you said, the person would try to apply the scientific method to religion and would come up with the philosophical equivalent of a null pointer exception.
Why don't you believe in Zeus? Is it a null-pointer exception, or because of reasoning? If somebody claimed to be the prophet of God, how would you judge their claims? Would you apply reasoning?
Yes, we start out with a will to live, but when we get better at thinking, we start asking "What's the point?" I think that's when the will to live can take a back seat if we want it to.
Sure, and people kill themselves. However the ingrained will to live is an extremely strong one, even when everything is going wrong.
Which leads me to think that there are, in fact, very very few true atheists.
The world isn't black and white. Lots of people who consider themselves Christians have varying degrees of doubt and uncertainty. As for me, I firmly believe that nobody on this planet has any knowledge of the divine, except that which we can all experience -- that is, if you look at the world and wonder, maybe you think there's a creator and a purpose.
I do look at the world and wonder -- I think we pretty much all do. Everything in my experience points to death being the end. If there's a purpose to this world, or my existence, I don't see any sign of it. However, rationally, I can't rule out the possibility of some kind of divine power, but it's not something that brings me hope or carries me through the day. It's just an intellectual possibility, if you see what I mean.
But I do believe that, after all the arguments, all the philosophy, all the reasoning, all the evidence, and all the speculation, reasonably intelligent people can choose either path without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. I chose to believe.
Depends on what you believe and why. When faced with this question in my teen years, I realized it would be easier to just believe, and I kind of wanted to, but I knew I would be lying to myself just to make life easier. That's motivation. As for the "what", if somebody intellectually accepts something like Christianity and The Bible as divine knowledge, I cannot reconcile that at all with intellectual integrity. That's just latching on to what they were raised to believe in.
If I didn't have that belief, I'd find the "alternative" we talked about above very appealing, every day, especially when everything's going wrong.
I think you mean appalling, not appealing:) I'll be honest: Life would be a whole lot easier if I had religion. And sometimes I feel guilty about tearing into what people believe. If somebody has inner peace it doesn't bring me joy to destroy it. However, I can't accept what I consider mythology as truth, and when religion is discussed I will vigorously dispute it.
It's like saying 2+2=5, or insisting that the earth is flat. It's frustration on people putting warning stickers on science books. Religious dogma is the exact opposite of science. So yeah, there's going to be a backlash if you express religious beliefs here, and expecting different is unrealistic.
If Java's type system IS enough (but incomplete) then the argument goes why should dynamically typed languages be singled out for not being robust enough on bigger code bases?
It's called a continuum. Java's mediocre static typing is better than the complete lack of static typing on dynamic languages. Being able to use see types is a huge benefit. As for finding bugs with testing, it's much faster to find them while you're typing. Code completion is extremely productive.
Yeah, occasionally static types get in the way, but overall I find them too useful to do without.
I'm paraphrasing from the Static Typing's Paper Tigers section of Steve Yegge's Rhino's and Tigers blog post though.
And you make it sound like I'm an admirer of the FSF.
Huh? How do you draw that conclusion? Work on your own reading skills.
My only comment was on your poor representation of the FSF as having "create the Open Source movement", and stating the obvious reason why they wouldn't wave a flag for "inventing Open Source".
The brilliance of this pick is that the Democrats can't harp on Palin's supposed Vice-Presidential inexperience without highlighting Barack Obama's Presidential inexpierience.
They can just ignore the pick all together. It's the fucking Veep. Bush Sr. won with Dan Quayle.
Translation: "I couldn't vote against the bill because it might make me look weak on security, even though earlier I had promised to support a filibuster for any bill with telecom immunity. Now that I've got the nomination wrapped up, I have to run to the right. Don't worry though, when I'm President I'll vote the correct way, trust me."
Oral traditions are exceedingly reliable historical references.
You've got to be kidding me. People lie. They don't see everything that happened. They misremember things. Details are left out. Embellishments occur. Context is missing. Prejudices abound.
Even in the modern era where there are reporters and cameras everywhere, finding out the truth is a shaky proposition. Have you ever read a story in a newspaper that you had inside knowledge of? Was it accurate? Did it tell the whole story?
Now you're going to claim that stories from 1,000s of years ago that were orally handed down before reaching book form are a good historical reference? Absolutely delusional.
Atheism drives scientific progress because someone who believes in an intelligent controller will just say, "It's God. What ya gonna do?"
The order isn't right. The scientific method leads one to atheism, not that atheism drives the scientific method. Once you start seeing how questions become answered and progress is made by thinking scientifically, and then you apply that scientific thinking to religious beliefs, atheism naturally appears.
I'll give you a personal story. As a child playing outside I noticed some wind, followed by shadow. I figured the wind was blowing the light away. Of course I eventually figured out it was the clouds covering up the sun. Cause and effect. Repeat this process over and over with new experiences, and throw in models, prediction, and testing, and wow, the world seems so much clearer.
Also as I child I was told about God. This was not a natural concept. I didn't understand how this invisible man could be nowhere and everywhere.
So why do you believe in God, if you do? Is it because that's what you were taught as a child? Why did your parents believe in it? A rational explanation for me is that religion is no different than mythology -- stories and explanations created by man and handed down through time. No different than Zeus throwing lightning bolts or my idea that the wind caused shadows.
An atheist just believes in one less religion than you.
I think historically a lot of prominent scientists have been believers of some sort, if not full-on christians.
Historically, it hasn't been very acceptable to profess non-belief. It was the kind of thing that could get you killed. Nowadays, I think you'll find scientists as a group less likely to believe than the average population.
In fact, for some modern-day biochemists who believe, I've heard them say that it deepens their appreciation for the wisdom, intelligence, and creativity of God when they learn more about the universe.
You can do science and have belief. Clearly many do. What most believing scientists do is to compartmentalize the two. Personally, I think these scientists are just fooling themselves, but whatever, as long as they don't corrupt their scientific work I don't care what they believe about religion.
what motivates the atheist to strive for progress anyway? [...] Why would any of those things have significance for the atheist if he honestly believes that nothing of his mind or personality will survive his own death?
You have to do something with your life. What's the alternative, to kill yourself? We're all born with the will to live and other motivations. People who do science have a love of discovery. It's also human nature to want something to carry on after you die, even if logically it all seems futile.
Sorry, Christians. I disagree with your beliefs, but I despise how your beliefs are treated on this site. It's low, immature, and uncalled-for
Are you surprised that a site dedicated to technology and science is hostile to religious beliefs? There are plenty of well-reasoned comments to go along with the more immature ones.
This was moderated down not because it was off topic (As it was a response to a modded up challange) but because it proved a point that someone didn't want to hear.
If anything, it should have been moderated down as Overrated or just not plain moderated at all. Your post was written extremely poorly (grammar-wise), full of muddled thinking and hand-wavy claims about physics and what it "proves" about God.
Arguing in favor of Pascal's Wager? Come on, man, apologetics have given that one up long ago.
Who has more moral standing? Somebody whose morals are based on what was written in a 2000 year old book, which itself was assembled by committee, and then translated and interpreted through the ages, dictated to followers as the irrefutable word of God...
Or somebody who works it out from experience, common themes, and reasoning?
I'm sorry, what's the difference between calling a person a name and an organization a name? The intent and mechanism is the same. Maybe you can see the bigger picture instead of focusing on irrelevant details?
You lost. Admit it. Ideology != religion, especially an ideology that states religion is bullshit.
I'm an atheist, and I hate the non-thinking dogma religion encourages, but religion is not the root of all the big evils, and atheism is no cure. Men fight over power, ideas, resources, territory. Sometimes religion is involved, but it's certainly no requirement. War happens even among non-human species.
The main contribution of the FSF to posterity has been to create the Open Source movement
The Open Source movement was a break from the old guard at the FSF. The way you state it sounds like the FSF set out to create Open Source. They didn't.
But does FSF boast about their role in inventing Open Source?
They resent having their thunder stolen. They don't like the inclusive nature of Open Source -- that it's ok for proprietary software to co-exist with open source.
The GPL provides more freedom to users by requiring coders to give back to the community.
Freedom != capability. If I know how to read, and you don't, then you can't call it freedom by forcing me to teach you how to read. Freedom means I can't forbid somebody from teaching you how to read. Freedom means I can't tell you what to read. Get it?
"leverage" is just a business-inspired term for "use". That you felt compelled to use both (sorry, leverage) is sad commentary on how pervasive this word has become.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft is not threatening to sue over patents, why would they hand Novell a boatload of money to sign a patent deal with royalties going back to Microsoft for every Novell Linux sold? Microsoft paid Novell a bunch of money to do this deal, and all of this after remarks about patent violations in Linux.
It's quite obvious Microsoft wants people to pay for Linux with royalties going to Microsoft, under the threat of lawsuit. And in case you need the threat spelled out for you, Ballmer did so, multiple times:
http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2006/03/22/ballmer-microsoft-linux-cz_df_0322microsoft.html
"Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy."
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Ballmer_repeats_threats_against_Linux/0,130061733,339273726,00.htm
"I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that open source is not free, and open source will have to respect the intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will."
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2200717/microsoft-sharpens-aims-patent
"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us"
What makes me laugh is that America still calls itself the "Land of the Free" *snicker* and the "Home of the Brave" *guffaw*.
Those are ideals that have never, in no time in America's history, have ever been fully lived up to. Still, it's nice to have ideals.
You appear to be neither from over here.
Where is "here"? Every country has it's problems.
I'll probably be modded as flamebait or a troll for this
No you won't, because you included this phrase, which often results in upmods, as I'm sure you're aware.
Maybe we should vote on it; you Americans are okay with voting, right? Even if it means you might lose?
Go ahead, why the fuck should Americans care? The world will continue on in pretty much the same way, since America has no official position as "leader of the free world". That point was made pretty clear when a lot of the "free world" countries were against the invasion of Iraq.
I can't remember too many actual real examples of microsoft trying to scare anyone with thier patents. What I do remember is every linuxite freaking out about the fact that Microsoft COULD try to scare people if they felt like it someday.
You haven't been paying attention then:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ballmer+novell+linux+patents
I was referring to the scientific method, not to reason in general.
A big part of the scientific method is reasoning. Of course there is no "God" experiment you can run in the lab, but you can gather evidence. When the evidence points to mythology, then I don't call it a "null pointer exception".
Some have actually come to the conclusion that God exists by using their reason.
I've never seen a strong case based on reasoning. The strongest I've seen is the watchmaker argument, but that one doesn't go very far.
Actually, I did mean appealing. Why go through the junk of life when there's no ultimate payoff?
Ok, I misinterpreted what you said. I see you mean suicide would be an appealing option if you didn't have belief. But while you might give it more consideration, it's a hell of a thing to commit yourself to.
Deluge much?
The difference between religion and those things is that religion is not demonstrably false.
I'll grant that it's not as obvious, but there are a vast number of holes in religion.
So, not only do people have no business lashing out against religion because it's immature, they have no business doing so because it isn't demonstrably false.
Missing the biggest argument, that religion encourages dogma, which is the exact opposite of science.
And I don't think it's at all unrealistic to expect religion to get treated with a modicum of respect.
No more respect than the RIAA, Microsoft, or Bush/Republicans get. This is Slashdot.
At least Fox News is fairly honest about its bias
Their slogan is "Fair and Balanced".
But it's useless for studying something that cannot be empirically demonstrated.
I think all religious teachings can be reasoned about. In fact, you did so yourself in your post, numerous times.
And, as you said, the person would try to apply the scientific method to religion and would come up with the philosophical equivalent of a null pointer exception.
Why don't you believe in Zeus? Is it a null-pointer exception, or because of reasoning? If somebody claimed to be the prophet of God, how would you judge their claims? Would you apply reasoning?
Yes, we start out with a will to live, but when we get better at thinking, we start asking "What's the point?" I think that's when the will to live can take a back seat if we want it to.
Sure, and people kill themselves. However the ingrained will to live is an extremely strong one, even when everything is going wrong.
Which leads me to think that there are, in fact, very very few true atheists.
The world isn't black and white. Lots of people who consider themselves Christians have varying degrees of doubt and uncertainty. As for me, I firmly believe that nobody on this planet has any knowledge of the divine, except that which we can all experience -- that is, if you look at the world and wonder, maybe you think there's a creator and a purpose.
I do look at the world and wonder -- I think we pretty much all do. Everything in my experience points to death being the end. If there's a purpose to this world, or my existence, I don't see any sign of it. However, rationally, I can't rule out the possibility of some kind of divine power, but it's not something that brings me hope or carries me through the day. It's just an intellectual possibility, if you see what I mean.
But I do believe that, after all the arguments, all the philosophy, all the reasoning, all the evidence, and all the speculation, reasonably intelligent people can choose either path without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. I chose to believe.
Depends on what you believe and why. When faced with this question in my teen years, I realized it would be easier to just believe, and I kind of wanted to, but I knew I would be lying to myself just to make life easier. That's motivation. As for the "what", if somebody intellectually accepts something like Christianity and The Bible as divine knowledge, I cannot reconcile that at all with intellectual integrity. That's just latching on to what they were raised to believe in.
If I didn't have that belief, I'd find the "alternative" we talked about above very appealing, every day, especially when everything's going wrong.
I think you mean appalling, not appealing :) I'll be honest: Life would be a whole lot easier if I had religion. And sometimes I feel guilty about tearing into what people believe. If somebody has inner peace it doesn't bring me joy to destroy it. However, I can't accept what I consider mythology as truth, and when religion is discussed I will vigorously dispute it.
I just disagree and leave it at that.
It's like saying 2+2=5, or insisting that the earth is flat. It's frustration on people putting warning stickers on science books. Religious dogma is the exact opposite of science. So yeah, there's going to be a backlash if you express religious beliefs here, and expecting different is unrealistic.
By the way the science is in here and THAT is what is backing me up.
[citation needed]
If Java's type system IS enough (but incomplete) then the argument goes why should dynamically typed languages be singled out for not being robust enough on bigger code bases?
It's called a continuum. Java's mediocre static typing is better than the complete lack of static typing on dynamic languages. Being able to use see types is a huge benefit. As for finding bugs with testing, it's much faster to find them while you're typing. Code completion is extremely productive.
Yeah, occasionally static types get in the way, but overall I find them too useful to do without.
I'm paraphrasing from the Static Typing's Paper Tigers section of Steve Yegge's Rhino's and Tigers blog post though.
Steve Yegge is a big blowhard.
And you make it sound like I'm an admirer of the FSF.
Huh? How do you draw that conclusion? Work on your own reading skills.
My only comment was on your poor representation of the FSF as having "create the Open Source movement", and stating the obvious reason why they wouldn't wave a flag for "inventing Open Source".
The brilliance of this pick is that the Democrats can't harp on Palin's supposed Vice-Presidential inexperience without highlighting Barack Obama's Presidential inexpierience.
They can just ignore the pick all together. It's the fucking Veep. Bush Sr. won with Dan Quayle.
Translation: "I couldn't vote against the bill because it might make me look weak on security, even though earlier I had promised to support a filibuster for any bill with telecom immunity. Now that I've got the nomination wrapped up, I have to run to the right. Don't worry though, when I'm President I'll vote the correct way, trust me."
Oral traditions are exceedingly reliable historical references.
You've got to be kidding me. People lie. They don't see everything that happened. They misremember things. Details are left out. Embellishments occur. Context is missing. Prejudices abound.
Even in the modern era where there are reporters and cameras everywhere, finding out the truth is a shaky proposition. Have you ever read a story in a newspaper that you had inside knowledge of? Was it accurate? Did it tell the whole story?
Now you're going to claim that stories from 1,000s of years ago that were orally handed down before reaching book form are a good historical reference? Absolutely delusional.
Atheism drives scientific progress because someone who believes in an intelligent controller will just say, "It's God. What ya gonna do?"
The order isn't right. The scientific method leads one to atheism, not that atheism drives the scientific method. Once you start seeing how questions become answered and progress is made by thinking scientifically, and then you apply that scientific thinking to religious beliefs, atheism naturally appears.
I'll give you a personal story. As a child playing outside I noticed some wind, followed by shadow. I figured the wind was blowing the light away. Of course I eventually figured out it was the clouds covering up the sun. Cause and effect. Repeat this process over and over with new experiences, and throw in models, prediction, and testing, and wow, the world seems so much clearer.
Also as I child I was told about God. This was not a natural concept. I didn't understand how this invisible man could be nowhere and everywhere.
So why do you believe in God, if you do? Is it because that's what you were taught as a child? Why did your parents believe in it? A rational explanation for me is that religion is no different than mythology -- stories and explanations created by man and handed down through time. No different than Zeus throwing lightning bolts or my idea that the wind caused shadows.
An atheist just believes in one less religion than you.
I think historically a lot of prominent scientists have been believers of some sort, if not full-on christians.
Historically, it hasn't been very acceptable to profess non-belief. It was the kind of thing that could get you killed. Nowadays, I think you'll find scientists as a group less likely to believe than the average population.
In fact, for some modern-day biochemists who believe, I've heard them say that it deepens their appreciation for the wisdom, intelligence, and creativity of God when they learn more about the universe.
You can do science and have belief. Clearly many do. What most believing scientists do is to compartmentalize the two. Personally, I think these scientists are just fooling themselves, but whatever, as long as they don't corrupt their scientific work I don't care what they believe about religion.
what motivates the atheist to strive for progress anyway? [...] Why would any of those things have significance for the atheist if he honestly believes that nothing of his mind or personality will survive his own death?
You have to do something with your life. What's the alternative, to kill yourself? We're all born with the will to live and other motivations. People who do science have a love of discovery. It's also human nature to want something to carry on after you die, even if logically it all seems futile.
Sorry, Christians. I disagree with your beliefs, but I despise how your beliefs are treated on this site. It's low, immature, and uncalled-for
Are you surprised that a site dedicated to technology and science is hostile to religious beliefs? There are plenty of well-reasoned comments to go along with the more immature ones.
This was moderated down not because it was off topic (As it was a response to a modded up challange) but because it proved a point that someone didn't want to hear.
If anything, it should have been moderated down as Overrated or just not plain moderated at all. Your post was written extremely poorly (grammar-wise), full of muddled thinking and hand-wavy claims about physics and what it "proves" about God.
Arguing in favor of Pascal's Wager? Come on, man, apologetics have given that one up long ago.
Yea just like moral atheist...
Who has more moral standing? Somebody whose morals are based on what was written in a 2000 year old book, which itself was assembled by committee, and then translated and interpreted through the ages, dictated to followers as the irrefutable word of God...
Or somebody who works it out from experience, common themes, and reasoning?
I'm sorry, what's the difference between calling a person a name and an organization a name? The intent and mechanism is the same. Maybe you can see the bigger picture instead of focusing on irrelevant details?
You lost. Admit it. Ideology != religion, especially an ideology that states religion is bullshit.
I'm an atheist, and I hate the non-thinking dogma religion encourages, but religion is not the root of all the big evils, and atheism is no cure. Men fight over power, ideas, resources, territory. Sometimes religion is involved, but it's certainly no requirement. War happens even among non-human species.
The main contribution of the FSF to posterity has been to create the Open Source movement
The Open Source movement was a break from the old guard at the FSF. The way you state it sounds like the FSF set out to create Open Source. They didn't.
But does FSF boast about their role in inventing Open Source?
They resent having their thunder stolen. They don't like the inclusive nature of Open Source -- that it's ok for proprietary software to co-exist with open source.
Not this old debate again.
It's never going to end.
The GPL provides more freedom to users by requiring coders to give back to the community.
Freedom != capability. If I know how to read, and you don't, then you can't call it freedom by forcing me to teach you how to read. Freedom means I can't forbid somebody from teaching you how to read. Freedom means I can't tell you what to read. Get it?
Ofcourse it's emotional and you're free to call it childish and screechy if that's your perception.
Calling people names is a childish tactic. Do you seriously dispute this?
That doesn't change my point
It makes me less inclined to pay attention.
If that's a problem for you - feel free to ignore me.
Or I'll just do what I did -- critique you for it. I don't need your permission.
using or leveraging
"leverage" is just a business-inspired term for "use". That you felt compelled to use both (sorry, leverage) is sad commentary on how pervasive this word has become.